Back in the 1970’s, Ford made the Pinto with a gas tank mounted behind the axle, with a protrusion on the axle positioned to puncture the gas tank in a rear end collision. When that happens, a cloud of vaporized gasoline envelopes the vehicle, and any spark can ignite a fireball. After a number of Pinto occupants were incinerated, trial lawyers exposed Ford’s bad choices. Eventually, it became standard practice for auto manufacturers to mount fuel tanks in a protected position under the passenger compartment, guarded by the frame and axles.
Now the behind-the-axle fuel tank design is found in only one vehicle manufactured in the United States. And, yes, Ford is at it again.
The Ford Crown Victoria, Mercury Grand Marquis and Lincoln Town Car are the same except for the trim. The gas tank is mounted behind the axle, with several protruding parts that can puncture the gas tank upon rear impact.
The Crown Victoria is widely used as a police interceptor. After several policemen were burned up, Ford came up with a retrofit kit to guard the parts capable of puncturing the tank. That kit has been 100% effective in preventing gas tank ruptures and fires in rear end collisions at speeds up up to 100 mph.
However, Ford has not informed non-police consumers of the hazard, and has not made the guarding retrofit kit available to customers other than law enforcement. How many more innocent consumers must die before Ford fixes the problem?
See table of fatal fire crashes, 1993-2000, and report of recent police car fire in Seattle.

According to an article in the New York Times (free registration required) on 3/31/05, a study from the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen and documents from a recent lawsuit against the Ford Motor Company suggest that Ford ignored evidence that stronger roofs would lead to fewer injuries. Also on Wednesday, a plaintiffs’ lawyer in several prominent rollover lawsuits said he had obtained internal Ford documents that show that several years ago the company rebuffed assertions from its Volvo subsidiary that stronger vehicle roofs prevent injuries and deaths in rollover accidents. Documents connected with a trial this year involving Ford show that the automaker decided not to strengthen roof supports on the Explorer, a sport utility vehicle, although engineers at the company recommended the change.
A new study by Martha Bidez, a biomedical engineering professor at the University of Alabama, concludes that “roof crush can and does cause catastrophic injury and death.” The study re-examined Ford’s own rollover crash data from 1998 and 1999 and concluded that the most catastrophic neck injuries occurred when the Explorer’s roof caved in and smashed into the crash dummy’s head. It further found that in test cases where the Explorer’s roof was not crushed, no serious injuries were recorded in the dummies.
The Explorer’s roof has become the subject of further scrutiny after the disclosure that more than a decade ago, Ford dismissed suggestions from its engineers that the vehicle’s roof supports be strengthened. A 1993 memorandum from two Ford engineers, which was reported in The Detroit News on Tuesday, suggested that the company reinforce support pillars that connect the body of the 1995 Explorer to its roof.
Ford did not, and produced Explorers in at least three subsequent model years that were more susceptible to having their roofs crushed in a rollover, according to documents introduced in the Florida case earlier this month
We have had successful recoveries in several cases of automotive product liability, including roof crush cases. While the specifics of settlements are subject to confidentiality covenants, our clients were satisfied and these types of issues are familiar to us.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission has announced the following product recalls in recent days:
Portable cribs from Delta Enterprises — crib slats can separate from the headboard, posing an entrapment risk to young children.
Rear projection TV from JVC – fire risk.
Carpet from Shaw Industries — fire risk due to uneven application of fire retardant.
— High intensity light fixtures from Lithonia Lighting — fluid leak causing lenses to break.
Children’s sweaters from J. C. Penney – choking hazard.
Stuffed yarn bunnies from Ocean Desert Sales — choking hazard.
Soother Baby pacifiers — choking hazard.
Lands End infant & toddler parkas — choking hazard.

In some rare cases, a wrongful death action in Georgia may be based upon unfair and deceptive acts and practices in violation of the Fair Business Practices Act (FBPA). That statute allows recovery of treble damages, punitive damages and attorney fees for intentional violations. This theory may be particularly applicable in products liability cases where a manufacturer has systematically deceived consumers with regard to product hazards.

Enforcement of manufacturers” legal accountability to consumers helps make products safer and better for all of us. With the U.S. economy the strongest in the world, protection of consumers does not restrain innovation and legitimate corporate profits.
Under Georgia law, a manufacturer may be liable for injury or death caused by a defective product under three separate legal theories.